I don't mean to be sexist here but it seems to me that women have a different shade of glasses on when they look at the world as compared to men.

As nursemike says "Women are as interested in survival issues as men are-they just see survival in a more realistic fashion. They tend to prepare for things that will be likely to kill you, like health and traffic-rather than things that are less likely to happen, but more fun to work on, like dog packs and civil unrest."

To that end I will paraphrase an article by a well-known female car enthusiast that holds up a real life example of the difference in the way men and women see cars.
http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=0e55fae1-452b-4f1a-8f23-e3dc5412e783
When a man sees the CHECK ENGINE light come on - he thinks, "Drat, the emissions control is on the blink again. I'll get it serviced next time I'm in for an oil change." When a woman sees the CHECK ENGINE light come on she thinks, "OH NO, the engine is about to die and leave me stranded on the side of the road!!!" The author also singled out North American auto makers (and specifically Ford) of being the most vague with it's idiot light. It sends out the wrong message. In reality, it just means that something in the emissions controls is a little out of sync and some anonymous error number pops up - hardly anything to panic about. And yet that's not how it is being interpreted.

That article blew my mind!!! I had absolutely no idea that it would be interpreted that way. I'm not a fan of idiot lights in the first place but I at least thought that most people thought along the same lines when the see them.

Therefore in order to get women interested in "survival" topics you have to speak in the language as they think in. I, however, am not a good interpreter of that language.